Shwa

The Billion Dollar Boondock-le!!!

Stalling for what? Leave me out of your fantasies please. So, how does this cited decision absolve First Nations in Quebec from unilaterally cancelling their contracts - treaties - with the federal government and, since the date of the above, does it even apply today?

Citation please. Thanks!

This is it exactly and clearly, there are no ifs, ands or buts about it. The only problem I see is that First Nations also have an obligation toward the contracts - treaties - they have signed up to this point and cannot simply and unilaterally decide to void them.

So what do we know? It seems to be that this section guarantees rights and treaty obligations that existed prior to the coming of being of Canadian or Provincial law. Do you read something different?

And your assumption is that 80% - or a majority thereof - are incapable of understanding rural issues and making decision based upon the needs of the 20% that live in those rural areas and creating legislation to reflect those collective values. You are immediately assuming that the other 20% "should just shut up, bend over and take it without complaining!" WTF is wrong with you?

Bureaucrats indifferent to Indian Affairs fiasco Indian Affairs slack with third-party managers, says auditor general But of course, the real problem is with Chiefs taking trips to Vegas and buying big boats and such...

Citation please, including that Canada is devoid of financial capital for investments in national infrastructure and manufacturing programs. Thanks.

Excellent. So you are fully on board with multiculturalism. I knew, sooner or later, you'd give in.

No, it is them adapting with a goal toward their advantage, like they always have. Like most people do...

Attracting and vigorously pursuing foreign investment is STILL a matter of policy in Canada. But that does not equate to Canada not having capital to invest in anything she chooses to. I mean seriously B-C...

Bright enough to cease with the endless dodging when you are proven wrong. That is "well documented" also.

Something like half of them live in the cities. Good luck trying to source them out.

I am not anti-Alberta, just anti-Alberta Separatiste. My predictions will be that some whiney Albertans will still be crying in their beer over NEP 10 years from now. Nothing we can do for that. But I love the idea of a rich Alberta, shelling out all that transfer money to support retired Ontarians, BC hippies and QC artistes. Once you reach Utopia, let me know and I'll come out for my slice.

Because like any good corporation - the Corporation of the City of Toronto makes investments in it's line of business to bring in revenue and thereby profit from it in one way or another.

Government revenues, that the government "owns" once they are received by the Receiver General. Once that happens, the money ceases to have any ownership by you - or anyone else - in any meaningful way. If you want to use 'chits' as the abstract, ownership still applies. You pay your 'chits' and once they come into government possession, they are no longer your chits and you have no connection with them whatsoever. Next time you drive down the public road, think about the absurdity of your position. Speed up to 200 km/ph and see if anyone notices and asks you to appear in court to pay more involuntary chits due to these things called "laws." Yes, they are 'like' businesses that serve clients that pay for their services and deal with accounts receivable and accounts payable. And they operate in the best interests of their clients. "Cynical" isn't the word I was thinking about. How about naive? That is a better fit. First, you would have some "sacred trust" of your tax dollars determine how they are spent even after they are given to others in the form of payment for work they do. And somehow, through some convoluted condition of logic, this "sacred trust" then applies further to a perfectly legal group formed to support these people who you are paying for. Let me guess August, your preferred footwear are jackboots yes?

But still not bright enough to make the point and hide behind little dodge attempts.

Action against the wrong-doers for excessive force, yes, but has the issue been settled as to whether the arrests or detentions were illegal? I think the question as to whether the order in council was given to expand the protected areas will be sorted out with any illegal arrest cases.

Attrition will likely be the first line of cuts. With an aging work force and the rise of service automation, attrition makes perfect sense. There are two problems to this: for one, the automated functions of the government are not quite there yet. This came up with the controversy of web services not meeting the accessibility requirements or key government departments being hacked; the second thing is that not all people want to retire and it is tough to force them. I wouldn't be surprised to see the federal government start to offer early retirement packages like they did back in the day.

Because they are backward and needed a lesson in how things are run properly. Also, they had almost no gun control and look what they did to themselves. And others too, you know, the ethnic cleansing and all that nasty business.

Sweeping generalization that simply is not true. No doubt you are a prime candidate for groupthink. No, it is a small portion of the population that is rural, 20% overall - smaller in some provinces like Ontario. So apparently it is you who does not "understand country life at all." This is proven by your subsequent statement that rural people "get no services" and are "there to subsidize city dwellers." Seriously now, and I mean this with all due respect: you have no idea what you are talking about. "gov't corruption issues" I getchya. StatsCan demographics: 25% of Canada's population live in the Golden Horseshoe; almost 40% of the population resides in Ontario; more than 2/3's of the population reside in Ontario and Quebec. Irrelevant. The Americans already dealt with the separation issues 150 years ago. I think the only victim is you, of your own device and of your own delusions.

You're right, there has to be another way. Hmmmm... what to do? what to do? I got it: What we should do is force them to assimilate by taking their kids, educating them in special schools to teach them the modern ways of Canada, languages, arts and maths. That should do it. Oh wait, I forgot you are susceptible to being confused by sarcasm.

Interesting story from the Star: Canada, youre’ becoming more conservative, Manning says An interesting story and more interesting perception - insight - from none other than Preston Manning. However, I doubt he means we should readily accept some of the more extreme views present in Con-Canada, but all in all, people are likely sick and tired of elections and wish to conserve their interests for something else. I don't the latter comment is true though, since most of the policies and programs of the CPC are similar to the LPC days. Then again, what is the centre? Yeah, I guess it could be true...

Anyone that has to persistently use Canada as a foil proves that "marekin" ain't too bright. Probably has self-esteem issues too.

Nope. You are mistaking a province for something that it is not. The "will" of the Quebec pertains to it as a province, nothing more. No one in Canada is holding any Quebecker, Ontarioan, Manitoban, etc. "against their will." They are free to leave whenever they wish. If they want to collective leave, an exodus as it were, they can do that too. The land stays behind.